The idea that we have a sufficient quantity of accurate data about Chernobyl to make sweeping claims about its impact on people living there, including how many

The idea that we have a sufficient quantity of accurate data about Chernobyl to make sweeping claims about its impact on people living there, including how many died as a result, is frankly idiotic. We do not and never will have such data. Okay, I'm just going to set your claim against the introduction to the report (http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/Advance_copy_Annex_D_Chernobyl_Report.pdf http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/Advance_copy_Annex_...) referenced in the BBC article. There has been an unprecedented effort by the international community to assess the magnitude and characteristics of the health effects due to the radiation exposure resulting from the accident. As early as August 1986, a widely attended international gathering, the “Post-Accident Review Meeting”, was convened in Vienna. The resulting report of the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG) contained a limited but essentially correct early account of the accident and its expected radiological consequences [I31]. In May 1988, the International Scientific Conference on the Medical Aspects of the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant [I32] held in Kiev summarized the available information at the time and confirmed that some children had received high doses to the thyroid. In May 1989, scientists obtained a more comprehensive insight into the scale of the consequences of the accident at an ad hoc meeting convened at the time of the 38th session of UNSCEAR [G15, K25]. In October 1989, the former Soviet Union formally requested “an international experts’ assessment” and, as a result, the International Chernobyl Project (ICP) [I5] was launched in early 1990; its conclusions and recommendations were presented at an International Conference held in Vienna, 21–24 May 1991 [I5]. Many national and international initiatives7 followed aimed at developing a better understanding of the accident consequences and in assisting in their mitigation. The results of these initiatives were presented at the 1996 International Conference on One Decade After Chernobyl8 [I29]. There was a broad agreement on the extent and character of the consequences. ... The objective of the present annex is to provide an authoritative and definitive review of the health effects observed to date that are attributable to radiation exposure due to the accident and to clarify the potential risk projections, taking into account the levels, trends and patterns of radiation dose to the exposed populations. The Committee has evaluated the relevant new information that has become available since the 2000 Report, in order to determine whether the assumptions used previously to assess the radiological consequences are still valid. In addition, it recognized that some issues merited further scrutiny and that its work to provide the scientific basis for a better understanding of the radiation‑related health and environmental effects of the Chernobyl accident needed to continue. The information considered included the behaviour and trends of the long‑lived radionuclides in foodstuff and the environment in order to improve the estimates of exposure of relevant population groups, and the results of the latest follow‑up studies of the health of the exposed groups. The effects of radiation on plants and animals following the Chernobyl accident are discussed separately in annex E, “Effects of ionizing radiation on non‑human biota”. Other effects of the accident, in particular, distress and anxiety, and socio‑economic effects, were considered by the Chernobyl Forum [W5] but are outside the Committee’s remit. The Committee, in general, bases its assessments on reports appearing in peer‑reviewed scientific literature and on information submitted officially by Governments in response to its requests. However, the results of many of the studies related to the Chernobyl accident have been presented at scientific meetings without formal scientific peer review. The Committee decided that it would only make use of such information when it could judge that the results and the underlying work were scientifically and technically sound.